Comments on: Tibet, one big bundle of joyhttp://www.pekingduck.org/2012/02/tibet-one-big-bundle-of-joy/
A peculiar hybrid of personal journal, dilettantish punditry, pseudo-philosophy and much more, from an Accidental Expat who has made his way from Hong Kong to Beijing to Taipei and finally back to Beijing for reasons that are still not entirely clear to him...Thu, 25 Oct 2018 05:46:29 +0000hourly1https://wordpress.org/?v=4.8.10By: Richardhttp://www.pekingduck.org/2012/02/tibet-one-big-bundle-of-joy/#comment-170740
Wed, 29 Feb 2012 17:59:26 +0000http://www.pekingduck.org/?p=9920#comment-170740This thread has gone on long enough. If you need to keep talking about Tibet please use the thread above.
]]>By: Otto Kernerhttp://www.pekingduck.org/2012/02/tibet-one-big-bundle-of-joy/#comment-170738
Wed, 29 Feb 2012 17:37:27 +0000http://www.pekingduck.org/?p=9920#comment-170738I do agree that the collapse of the Chinese state is Tibet’s only hope in the foreseeable future. Hopefully, the collapse would be followed swiftly by a new, stable, more liberal government. Actually, the ideal result for Tibet would be a partial collapse leading to a period of uncertainty and paralysis in China for a few months, with nobody totally sure who’s in charge, but without much actual violence. This would create a window of opportunity for an uprising in Tibet (and, presumably, in Xinjiang, too). However, any more liberal government would be very good news for Tibet. Liu Xiaobo for president!
]]>By: Otto Kernerhttp://www.pekingduck.org/2012/02/tibet-one-big-bundle-of-joy/#comment-170736
Wed, 29 Feb 2012 17:08:28 +0000http://www.pekingduck.org/?p=9920#comment-170736Tsarong,

Being as our enemies are consummate liars and distorters of the truth, let’s we go for a high standard of accuracy. China in Tibet: Brutal? Yes. Totalitarian? Yes. Genocidal? Not really. I don’t like the watering-down of that word.

The government has had 53 years to kill all the Tibetans, and there are an awful lot of Tibetans left. The demographic shift in Tibet is not a fait accompli yet and it doesn’t look like it’s going to be accomplished in the immediate future. This is a good thing – it means a free Tibet can be won without ethnic cleansing (as opposed to, say, Greek revanchism about Constantinople – there are currently more Turks living in the city than there are Greeks in the whole world). I think it’s probably true what they say that Tibetans’ average life expectancy has increased (I don’t necessarily trust official figures on how much it has increased, though). So, genocide doesn’t seem like the right word.

It’s interesting to look at the reasons why China has chosen brutal but not genocidal policies in Tibet. For one thing, there is the difficulty of implementing a practical policy which is contrary to the ostensible goals of the organization: it’s harder to give clear instructions to your subordinates. The Chinese Communists had a position in favor of ethnic self-determination going back to before they were in power, and it’s somewhat awkward to switch that to racial supremacy now. It’s not an insurmountable problem, though, since they have gone against Communist ideology in various other ways. An important thing to bear in mind is that Chinese policymaking has not been in the hands of one mastermind for a long time; instead, it’s done by committees and different levels of government interacting, which tends to discourage bold moves for good or ill.

Back in the 1950s, the PRC’s position was still somewhat unsteady and they were trying to avoid getting pulled into a major war with Tibet, so they attempted to coöpt the Tibetan élite instead. This created some inertia behind at least pretending to try to get along. After the revolt and the war (followed by the mulching of the Panchen clique) ended the élite collaboration strategy, they went straight into the Cultural Revolution. I think the Chinese leadership at the time overestimated how readily Tibetans would give up their identity and be assimilated as loyal Chinese subjects. They didn’t they had to kill the people to kill Tibet. They were reportedly very surprised at the emotional reaction of the Tibetan public to the Tibetan fact-finding missions in the early 80s (Chinese leaders apparently really believed that the public reaction would be anger and they were afraid of anti-exile riots!) Nowadays, there are probably limits to how much international PR damage the Chinese government is willing to put up with over Tibet; they’ll take a lot opprobrium and ignore it, but gas chambers might be a bridge too far. It’s worth noting that, in international law, genocide is often seen as a sufficient cause to warrant secession (as in the case of Kosovo) whereas simply enforcing objectionable laws is not. More to the point, what they’ve been doing in Tibet basically works; major political change there looks like it’s as far away as ever. They aren’t going to destablize it now with a big shift toward mass murder. I think they are still overly-optimistic about their long-term prospects. I think it will take hundreds of years to crush the Tibetan spirit of resistance (just as the English spent hundreds of years ruling Ireland and trying to get the Irish to like it, “the beatings will continue until morale increases”-style. The Irish didn’t stop wanting to be free even after they gave up their own language. Maybe some day there will be an independent Tibet where everybody speaks Chinese.)

]]>By: Tsaronghttp://www.pekingduck.org/2012/02/tibet-one-big-bundle-of-joy/#comment-170727
Wed, 29 Feb 2012 14:23:42 +0000http://www.pekingduck.org/?p=9920#comment-170727The Chinese state in its current form is brutal, genocidal and totalitarian towards Tibetans. It has been since 1959 and it has not changed yet. Only the collapse of the Chinese state in its current form holds out any hope of any kind. Tibetans and well wishers should work towards that end.
]]>By: Otto Kernerhttp://www.pekingduck.org/2012/02/tibet-one-big-bundle-of-joy/#comment-170724
Wed, 29 Feb 2012 13:09:54 +0000http://www.pekingduck.org/?p=9920#comment-170724SKC,

I don’t think autonomy is really much more politically possible than independence. I think the government knows that once the genie is out of the bottle, they won’t really be able to control where it goes; therefore, they can never loosen their grip even a little. I do think there is an alternative in the form of some kind of closely-watched semi-democratic autonomy, but it would be risky.

Your are correct, I used Gini incorrectly previously. But I must thank you again for bringing forth the data to support my assertion that a growing income gap in China must eventually result in a growing wealth gap, and I again enjoy the irony that you did so thinking it would support yours. That also was well done.

Your #143 is actually not bad. Of course, independence is logistically possible. And of course, independence is politically impossible. And that might explain why people aren’t talking about independence. They’re only talking about autonomy in more than name alone. And that doesn’t involve “Voluntarily giving up territory”, which seems to be the only position you can conceptualize on the subject.

“If China lets go of or eases up on Tibet it will be on Chinese terms and a uniquely Chinese historical precedent that the West will never in a million years emulate.”

There are several states in the world today which have ceded substantial powers of autonomy in areas under their control without force being involved, but because a desire for autonomy was expressed in the territory concerned or for diplomatic reasons. To cite only some of the most recent examples: Scottish and Welsh devolution, Serbia’s cession of Montenegro, the redefining of Quebec’s position as a “nation within Canada”, the division of Czechoslovakia. There would be nothing incredibly unique about Tibet being granted greater (as in, actual) autonomy.

Well, I regret implying anything about you specifically. I think it is common for American Indians to be brought up by people who don’t give a damn about American Indians. (I wonder how actual aboriginal Americans would feel about being used to justify the situation in Tibet). That might not apply to you personally.

Thanks for this, Otto. I stand corrected on Sikkim. On a related note, what are your opinions on India’s annexation of Sikkim? For me, personally, Tibetan independence or autonomy would be far more palatable if they took back all the parts that Britain/India basically stole. It sickens me that the REAL flooding of Tibet is happening in Sikkim, Ladakh and AP and the West stays completely silent on that fact. Whereas the permanent Han population in Tibetan regions is declining rapidly if anything.

I don’t have a strong opinion about Indian taking over Sikkim. Generally, I like having more and smaller countries, but annexation was apparently popular with the public there. The real problem in Sikkim is the demographic shift where it developed a Gurkha majority, but that has been a fait accompli since the 19th century. I’m generally against major demographic changes since they are almost never what the local public wants. Sikkim is also a bit of a special case in the Tibetan world since (along with, for example, Muli in Sichuan and to some extent Bhutan as well) it’s not clear that it ever really had a primarily Tibetan public, despite its Tibetan ruling class. I think most of the citizens were always various indigenous Himalayan clans, who didn’t necessarily appreciate being ruled by Tibetans. So the best solution might have been to detangle Sikkim out of the Tibetan sphere and have as an independent republic ruled by the locals.

So, the situation in Sikkim is basically already done for. I’m not aware of major ongoing demographic changes in the Tawang area or Ladakh, but I don’t claim to know a lot about them. If there is major demographic change, I’m against it. Still, problems around the periphery of the Tibetan world just don’t seem like as big of a deal as problems in the heartland of Tibetan civilisation.

141
An independent or autonomous Tibet is possible without expelling anybody, and I would suggest extending citizenship to any civilians who are legal residents under PRC law. There aren’t really that many non-Tibetans living in Tibet

True. I wouldn’t disagree at all that it’s logistically possible. Politically though, it is. I see no reason why China should bow to the demands of other nations whose only interest is in hurting China, not helping Tibetans. I’d revisit the line you made about squid ink in the first place, but fill in the blanks with Iraq, Afghan, Tibetan, Libyan, Syrian, Iranian, so on and so forth.

I just don’t think career liars and genocidal scum should draw the world’s borders. If China lets go of or eases up on Tibet it will be on Chinese terms and a uniquely Chinese historical precedent that the West will never in a million years emulate.

True. I wouldn’t disagree at all that it’s logistically possible. Politically though, it is.

I agree that it is politically impossible at present. However, I think this is a bit of a change of subject. Independence-without-expulsions and independence-with-expulsions are both politically impossible.

]]>By: Cookie Monsterhttp://www.pekingduck.org/2012/02/tibet-one-big-bundle-of-joy/#comment-170705
Wed, 29 Feb 2012 03:43:31 +0000http://www.pekingduck.org/?p=9920#comment-170705Voluntarily giving up territory for diplomatic or moral reasons is a uniquely Chinese phenomenon, but something on the scale of Tibet would set a precedent. I think you misread my comment.
]]>By: Peterhttp://www.pekingduck.org/2012/02/tibet-one-big-bundle-of-joy/#comment-170704
Wed, 29 Feb 2012 02:51:04 +0000http://www.pekingduck.org/?p=9920#comment-170704If China lets go of or eases up on Tibet it will be on Chinese terms and a uniquely Chinese historical precedent that the West will never in a million years emulate.

If this historical precedent exists, you should tell us what it is and then we can discuss its merits and whether it could be emulated or not.